A barrier to macroevolution & objections to it

It is not an assumption, in fact I haven't denied it at all. I'm sure mutations create new alleles.But I have concluded, not assumed, from the fact that all the "evidence" is inference, speculations, assumptions and hypotheticals, that these new mutated alleles really do not play the role claimed for them in increasing genetic diversity that has been depleted by the normal processes of selection, random selection, population splitting, and so on.Now there is this exception of an abstract linked by Mick in Message 189 that does appear to address this very issue, but it has yet to be discussed because the terms of the abstract are too technical for me, as I say in Message 208.If you understand that abstract and can translate it into clear English, please do so. I'm not debating anything else.Edited by Faith, : Sorry, necessary rewrite of a long sentence.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : to change the title

[deleted]Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

Now, I’m a theologian not a biologist but what I can make out of the abstract of the study is this. (A person more familiar with the field might need to correct me on some or all points).The cod have been subject to a radical decimation in population due to environmental factors. The research team have looked on how this expresses itself on the gene level, using a technique where a fixed piece of DNA can be isolated and analysed across generations. They have used preserved cods available from an institute (a cod genetic library if one so like) and fresh cod from the sea. The result was as all can se first a drop in the number of alleles and then a rise. They conclude that this pattern is compatible with gene drift (a sort of mutation) and migration. They don’t think that the cod well be well of.
Plain enough? Even if you aren’t willing to discuss the matter you have just conceded to the thing you once set out to disprove and made an oxymoron in the process. I do hope God doesn’t read those lines because he would certainly not like it! You see, if mutations create new alleles the diversity is per definition increased. That is, if diversity is increased new alleles must have been formed. The thing depleted are restocked, for as you yourself have boldly stated, “I'm sure mutations create new alleles”, and something new is something that was not here before and if it wasn’t here before but is here now we now have more and if we have more we have less depletion. But of cause this might just be an inferred hypothetical speculative assumption on my part. After all, how often does 1+1=2?

Listen, that mutation makes new alleles has been acknowledged all along. You obviously have not been following the argument. Your first post was clear enough that that was the case -- nothing but misrepresentations because you aren't grasping or trying to grasp what I'm trying to say. The question is whether those new alleles do what is claimed for them. There is "diversity" and "diversity." You have to prove that the new alleles in any way whatever benefit the species, in the face of the fact that MOST mutations are KNOWN to be deleterious, or functionless. How many times do I have to repeat this?You haven't answsered my questions concerning the cod example either. But I no longer want you to. I hope someone who has a better grasp of the situation will do so. What a big waste of time. You all come on here repeating the same old same old as if it answered me when it's what I've been addressing all along.You want to call mutations "alleles," so fine, they are different base code sequences so I guess they are "alleles," but that doesn't prove anything about mutation's producing USEFUL alleles that further the survivability or health of the species. THIS is what I'm focused on. This needs more evidence than this mindnumbing refrain about how mutations EXIST, which is NOT being contended. Sheesh. FOLLOW THE ARGUMENT, deal with what's really being asked. And since you can't follow the argument, please just desist from posting.What I want to know about the cod example -- and not from you or from anybody who keeps beating this dead horse -- is information that shows beyond a doubt that the "increase in alleles" is brought about by mutation without any other possible source, and that these alleles are BENEFICIAL, or at least potentially so. Don't bother telling me again that alleles ARE mutations! I also want to know exactly WHAT alleles these are, and why they are focused on.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Examples of evidence supporting benefitial mutations (like sickle cell or antibiotic resistance) have been given. You may reject these but they ARE examples of current evidence...Now, as far as the organism is concerned a mutation is simply a mutation. It is the environment into which it is introduced the determines whether it is beneficial or not. A useful mutation in one situation will be useless in another. They are ALL just mutations. Okay, so given you accept that new alleles can arise do you concede that there is at least a possiblity for a mutation to give an advantage in a certain environment?If this is indeed a possbility then where lies a barrier to beneficial mutation?Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

Hi Faith,Could you point me to the post where you provided evidence for your position, please.Mark

This is the same argument as "Can a Dog ever evolve to be a Cat..."The answer is NO in both cases.The human Eye can not become the Drosophila Eye or visa-versa. Neither can a Dog evolve to become a Cat. What could happen in both cases (in both directions) is that one element or species could, with the right evolutionary pressures, evolve to greatly resemble the other.A dog, could in time could come to look like a cat (change the size, muzzle shape ear shape, stance, claws, blah , blah) so much so that it would take a blood test to determine the difference. Does this mean that the dog has become a cat? Not at all, its genetics would be different to that of a cat and resemble more that of a dog. While it might still be able to breed with other dogs (the chances are unlikely) it would defiantly not be able to breed with a cat. It would not be a ”cat’ but would look like one.Same with the eyes. You could envision a scenario where evolutionary pressures could drive either system to become more like the other. Imagine if you will that over time the genes that define the size of the rods and cones causes a gradual increase in size. In time they will start to exert pressure on the interior of the eye ball and this will case the eye socket to changer shape to a more open dish. As the rods and cones push outward the iris expands and eventually disappears( along with the lens) leaving a spreading dome of rods and cones covered with the clear cover that once covered the iris. Eventually you would have a system very much like that in Drosophila. Would the human eye have BECOME that of the fly? NO. Does it closely resemble it? Yes.Whilst I’m at it I do have to ask the question: Since when has evolution only been about the INCREASE of variation of genes? I thought evolution was to do with the CHANGE in the frequency of these changes? (not specifying increase or decrease?)

Hi Faith,I think I've lost the thrust of your argument over the last two threads - it probably got buried somewhere in the myriad of posts to which you've had to respond. This is the bit which brought to my mind the fact that I'm not sure anyone is really twigging on to what your asking for: Could you clarify what it is you are talking about here? What is the difference between the two "diversities" you mention? I think that might help. This seems to be a key point. From what I can gather (and from what we were discussing in the other thread), this appears to be a "new" requirement. At least in my case, in the other thread I was trying to show that novel alleles DID in fact arise in separated populations - that could not have arisen simply by recombination - because that's what it appeared you were arguing against. Since you now seem to be agreeing that mutation can cause novel alleles to arise in these populations, has the requirement changed? Has the argument changed, or was this your requirement all along? If so, we seem to have wasted an entire thread and two thirds of another one arguing past each other. Could you clarify exactly what it is you want? Please be as specific as possible on what would satisfy your requirements, here. Maybe (it may not be possible), we can finally come up with an example of what you are looking for.

Indeed!?Faith’s initial post: and talks about You’ll have to forgive a poor sinner his lack of understanding but what I was getting at was your initial statement (The first law of Faith) that the process of evolution can only work in one way and that is to reduce genetic diversity. I can only commend you in acknowledging that “You want to call mutations "alleles," so fine, they are different base code sequences so I guess they are "alleles,"”. But I liked the formulation “that mutation makes new alleles has been acknowledged all along” better. It had more of a punch! To bad it somewhat makes the resting on the seventh day hang under a doubtful scale.As for the cod I did in fact answer your questions in my, I admit, childlike rephrasing. I didn’t answer the questions one by one though so here it comes if you like it or not “a technique where a fixed piece of DNA can be isolated and analysed across generations” As said before “a piece of” and a piece is a piece is a piece. They didn’t tell so I couldn’t tell but enough for making up some alleles. They didn’t tell so I could not tell. “preserved cods available from an institute (a cod genetic library if one so like) and fresh cod from the sea” “They conclude that this pattern is compatible with gene drift (a sort of mutation) and migration.” The key word here is MIGRATION. “The result was as all can se first a drop in the number of alleles and then a rise.” So new genotypes of cause! New phenotypes were observed but the study didn’t aim to establish a relation between the specific new alleles (or loss of an old one) and the specific change in phenotype. The sentence you are referring to are however only about genotype. Of cause it means what it says! A statement is it’s verification! It says that a mutation on nonsense DNA often is related to mutation in sensible DNA that lies close to it. Given that mutations are generally a bad thing (can cause decease you know). This can hamper the recovery of the cod.And so for something completely different! You said that So what would you then call the heterozygote mutation with sickle cell anaemia that causes immunity to malaria or the two base pair deletion in the CCR5 gene that causes resistance to HIV? Are they beneficial or not?

They are not evidence for what evidence is needed for. For heaven's sake isn't this clear by now? The fact that such mutations occasionally occur is NOT evidence that such mutations may occur in the numbers and quality needed to overcome the effects of the processes that reduce diversity.RickB, seriously, have you read this thread? About all you ever contribute to a discussion with me is put-down remarks, very rarely content, and when you do offer content it's something like this, way late and way short on following the argument. Obviously you haven't read a thing I've written. The answer is I've "conceded" this possibility umpteen dozen times. Sheesh. I have no idea. All I know is that there are paltry few examples of beneficial mutations, they are very iffy in their character, and they have not been shown to occur in the numbers or usefulness needed to correct for the effects of selection and migration and population splitting and gene drift and everything else that reduces genetic diversity. This reduction is well attested by breeders and conservationists which I have cited a few times here. I think the last post on that was {msg=-100.

That's not an argument, though. That's a weasel phrase. No matter how many mutations we show you, you can always argue that it's "not enough."Why don't you pick a number? How many mutations per generation are required to keep up with selection, etc.?

It's not a matter of "not enough" {although the number is nothing compared to the effects of selection, which often affects many genes at once even if only one or two is targeted) it's a matter of showing that it really does what you say it does in context, show it in the context of a speciation event -- PLEASE not bacteria -- show that it makes up for the losses.(Every time I say this I think to myself but that whole idea is wrong anyway, making up for losses is silly when it's the losses that bring about the new traits. The only reason mutation is wanted is because without it evolution can't happen, but it's unnecessary, pre-existing built-in alleles are all that's needed to produce all the variation we see in living things, all the microevolution.)But anyway, again, it has to be shown in context. The link about the apparent recovery of alleles in cod is the sort of evidence that is needed, and I'm still waiting to figure out what is actually going on there. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I've been very frustrated all along that everybody seems to think the mere fact of mutations has anything to say about this. I don't know if I've not been clear way back there somewhere, but I know I've been hammering away at this for some time now and still not getting it across.But in your example of the salamanders, the problem there was that mutation appeared to be assumed to be the explanation for the novel alleles, and nothing in the study proved that pre-existing alleles couldn't account for it.

If you regard a simple request for evidence as a put-down then that says much more about you than me!It may seem that I'm not following "the argument", but all I am trying to do is to tie you down to a clear, consistent hypothesis....Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

It’s a god thing that you now concede not only to the fact that mutations enrich the gene pool, but they also, as in HIV resistance and malaria resistance in humans, can be beneficial. All what remains of your argument is then what you called “inference, speculations, assumptions and hypotheticals” The assumption being that the speed of depletion and the speed of beneficial mutations are not equal. The examples you have are taken from conservationists and breeders.The problem with that whole train of thought is of cause partly that no one would argue against genetic depletion being a problem in organisms breed under those circumstances or that certain species whose habitat have undergone rapid change are not adapted. These are things biologists and geneticists have pointed at for decades. As a matter of fact this is the prediction you will get from ToE. ToE supposes gradual diversification of the genome. The fact that dinosaurs’ went extinct is attributed to too rapid change. The facts that certain species today are going extinct are believed to be due to too rapid environmental change. The fact that certain breeding programs are resulting in depletion are the result of too rapid change. The problem will disappear as soon as there is a proximate equilibrium between the pace of genome and environment mutation. Edited by jerker77, : No reason given.

---

/Jerker